Annotated Bibliography
This assignment asks you to annotate at least 4 of the required 4-6 sources you plan to use in your Public Argument. For each source, provide a summary of the article following the rhetorical précis guidelines. Following this summary, include a brief rationale of the source, including why it’s an important source for your issue. Each annotation should be about a paragraph in length (or about five to six sentences). Above your annotation, be sure to include bibliographic information that follows the specific format you choose to write your Public Argument (either MLA or APA).
Example
Silko, L.M. (1994). The border patrol state. In L. Faigley and J. Selzer (Eds.), Good reasons with contemporary arguments, 5th edition (160-166). Boston: Longman.
Leslie Silko, in her essay, “The Border Patrol State,” argues that the U.S. Border Patrol is unethical in its practices against minorities living within the borders of America. She makes the argument by retelling a narrative in which she explains the unjust measures she encountered during her travels in New Mexico and Arizona. Silko’s purpose is to enact change in the status quo and to speak out against what she deems as unethical and unjust practices. Her argument is especially salient for those living in Border States, as she is evaluating the purpose and ethics of the governmental body responsible for maintaining safety along the borders of the U.S. This essay would be especially useful for my argument on immigration law reform because Silko provides an important—and often forgotten—account of the difficulties minorities encounter once living in the U.S. legally.
Example
Silko, L.M. (1994). The border patrol state. In L. Faigley and J. Selzer (Eds.), Good reasons with contemporary arguments, 5th edition (160-166). Boston: Longman.
Leslie Silko, in her essay, “The Border Patrol State,” argues that the U.S. Border Patrol is unethical in its practices against minorities living within the borders of America. She makes the argument by retelling a narrative in which she explains the unjust measures she encountered during her travels in New Mexico and Arizona. Silko’s purpose is to enact change in the status quo and to speak out against what she deems as unethical and unjust practices. Her argument is especially salient for those living in Border States, as she is evaluating the purpose and ethics of the governmental body responsible for maintaining safety along the borders of the U.S. This essay would be especially useful for my argument on immigration law reform because Silko provides an important—and often forgotten—account of the difficulties minorities encounter once living in the U.S. legally.